ADDRESS 


OF  THE 

PRESIDENT  OF  THE 
UNITED  STATES 


AT  THE  LUNCHEON  OF 
THE  ASSOCIATED  PRESS 
NEW  YORK,  APRIL  24,  1923 


<  1923 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 


1923 


\ 

t 


IW 


\ 


I 


i- 

a 


f 


r< 


N  4 


ADDRESS. 

_  1923 

Members  of  the  Associated  Press: 

During  the  closing  days  of  the  last  Congress  I  sent  to  the  Senate 
a  communication  asking  its  advice  and  consent  to  the  adherence  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  the  protocol  establishing  the 
International  Court  of  Justice.  Out  of  this  simple,  natural,  normal 
proceeding  has  developed  so  much  of  mystery,  so  much  of  misunder¬ 
standing,  so  much  of  protest  and  approval,  so  much  of  threatened 
muddying  of  the  political  waters,  that  I  welcome  the  opportunity, 
on  so  appropriate  an  occasion,  to  reveal  to  the  American  people  both 
the  purpose  and  the  motives  impelling. 

Ours  is  popular  Government  through  the  agenc}’  of  political 
parties,  and  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  course  of  the  successful 
party,  which  is  at  the  same  time  an  honest  party,  must  be  fairly 
charted  by  the  platform  of  that  party,  and  by  the  utterances  of  its 
candidates  when  appealing  for  popular  approval.  On  that  assump¬ 
tion  it  is  seemly  to  recall  the  declarations  of  the  party  now  in  power 
relative  to  the  promotion  of  international  relationships. 

In  1904  the  national  platform  of  the  Republican  Party  said  “  we 
favor  the  peaceful  settlement  of  international  differences  by  arbitra¬ 
tion.”  Four  years  later,  in  the  national  convention  of  1908,  the  party 
in  its  platform  alluded  to  progress  made  in  keeping  faith  with  the 
previous  declaration,  and  said: 

“  The  conspicuous  contributions  of  American  statesmanship  to  the 
cause  of  international  peace  so  strongly  advanced  in  The  Hague 
conferences  are  occasions  for  just  pride  and  gratification.  *  *  * 

We  indorse  such  achievement  as  the  highest  duty  of  a  people  to 
perform,  and  proclaim  the  obligation  of  further  strengthening  the 
bonds  of  friendship  and  good  will  with  all  the  nations  of  the 
world.” 

In  1912  the  Republican  platform  made  a  very  explicit  declaration 
relating  to  an  International  Court  of  Justice.  I  quote  from  the 
party  covenant  of  faith : 

“Together  with  peaceful  and  orderly  development  at  home,  the 
Republican  Party  earnestly  favors  all  measures  for  the  establish- 

44303—23 


T 


C— * 


2 


ment  and  protection  of  the  peace  of  the  world,  and  for  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  closer  relations  between  the  various  nations  of  the  earth. 
It  believes  most  earnestly  in  a  peaceful  settlement  of  international 
disputes  and  in  the  reference  of  all  controversies  between  nations 
to  an  International  Court  of  Justice.” 

The  next  fonnal  and  solemn  pledge  was  made  in  1916.  I  quote 
again : 

“  The  Republican  Part}"  believes  that  a  firm,  consistent,  and  coura¬ 
geous  foreign  policy,  always  maintained  by  Republican  Presidents 
in  accordance  with  American  traditions,  is  the  best,  as  it  is  the  only 
true  way,  to  preserve  peace  and  restore  to  us  our  rightful  place 
among  nations.  We  believe  in  the  peaceful  settlement  of  inter¬ 
national  disputes,  and  favor  the  establishment  of  a  World  Court 
for  that  purpose.” 

In  1920  the  question  of  our  foreign  relationship  was  very  acute. 
The  Senate  had  rejected  the  Versailles  treaty  and  the  League  of 
Nations  pact.  The  convention  voiced  its  approval  of  the  rejectioji, 
but  was  unwilling  to  pledge  aloofness  from  the  world.  Therefore  it 
said  in  its  platform  pronouncement : 

We  pledge  the  coming  Republican  administration  to  such  agree¬ 
ments  with  other  nations  of  the  world  as  shall  meet  the  full  duty  of 
America  to  civilization  and  humanity,  in  accordance  with  American 
ideals,  without  surrendering  the  right  of  the  American  people  to 
exercise  its  judgment  and  its  power  in  favor  of  justice  and  peace.” 

As  a  participant  in  the  making  of  some  of  these  platforms  and 
as  the  banner-bearer  of  one  campaign,  I  have  a  right  to  believe  they 
spoke  the  party  conscience  so  plainly  that  it  is  not  easy  to  mis¬ 
construe. 

But  there  are  other  utterances  which  it  is  seemly  to  recall.  I 
allude  to  the  interpretation  of  the  platform  by  the  candidate  in 
1920.  On  August  28,  1920,  speaking  on  the  League  of  Nations  pro¬ 
posal,  I  said  frankly  and  very  definitely  I  did  not  favor  the  United 
States  entering  the  League  of  Nations.  It  was  declared  then  that 
the  issue,  as  defined  by  the  candidates,  “  involved  the  disparity  be¬ 
tween  a  world  court  of  justice,  supplemented  by  world  association 
for  conference,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  council  of  the  league  on 
the  other.”  Quoting  further  from  the  same  address,  I  said : 

‘‘  The  one  is  a  judicial  tribunal  to  be  governed  by  fixed  and  definite 
principles  of  law,  administered  without  passion  or  prejudice.  The 


3 


other  is  an  association  of  diplomats  and  politicians,  whose  deter¬ 
minations  are  sure  to  be  influenced  by  considerations  of  expediency 
and  national  selfishness.  *  *  *  One  a  government  of  laws  and 

i  one  a  government  of  men.” 

In  that  same  address  I  commended  The  Hague  tribunal.  One 
y  paragraph  is  particularly  appropriate  to  quote  afresh : 

“  I  believe  humanity  would  welcome  the  creation  of  an  international 
association  for  conference  and  a  world  court  whose  verdicts  on 
justiciable  questions  this  country,  in  common  with  all  nations,  would 
be  willing  and  able  to  uphold.  The  decision  of  such  a  court  or  the 
recommendations  of  such  a  conference  could  be  accepted  without 
sacrificing  on  our  part  or  asking  any  other  power  to  sacrifice  one 
iota  of  its  nationality.” 

So  much  for  political  party  history.  I  have  quoted  it,  because  I 
believe  in  keeping  the  faith.  If  political  parties  do  not  mean  what 
they  say  and  candidates  do  not  mean  what  they  say,  then  our  form 
of  popular  Government  is  based  on  fraud,  and  can  not  hope  to 
endure. 

In  compliance  with  its  pledges  the  new  administration,  which 
came  into  power  in  March,  1921,  definitely  and  decisively  put  aside 
^  all  thought  of  the  United  States  entering  the  League  of  Nations. 
It  doesn’t  propose  to  enter  now,  by  the  side  door,  the  back  door,  or 
the  cellar  door.  I  have  no  unseemly  comment  to  offer  on  the  league. 
^  If  it  is  serving  the  Old  World  helpfully,  more  power  to  it.  But  it  is 
not  for  us.  The  Senate  has  so  declared,  the  Executive  has  so  de¬ 
clared,  the  people  have  so  declared.  Nothing  could  be  more  de¬ 
cisively  stamped  with  finality. 

In  further  keeping  of  the  faith  the  administration  made  a  treaty  of 
peace  with  Germany,  a  just  treaty,  which  so  impressed  our  war-time 
enemy  that  when  we  came,  later  on,  to  set  up  a  mixed  claims  commis¬ 
sion  to  settle  the  claims  of  American  nationals  against  Germany,  that 
nation  named  one  commissioner,  we  named  one,  and  then,  for  the 
first  time  in  the  history  of  international  relationships,  Germany 
asked  us,  as  a  contending  nation,  to  name  the  umpire,  the  third 
member,  whose  vote  would  decide  all  differences.  I  know  of  no  like 
tribute  to  a  nation’s  fairness  in  all  the  records  of  history. 

Then  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  pledge  of  free  conference,  the 
International  Conference  on  the  Limitation  of  Armament  was  called, 

‘  44303—23 - 2 


r 


4 


not  in  haste,  not  because  some  one  was  prodding,  but  as  early  as 
the  barriers  to  success  could  be  removed.  The  spirit  of  that  con¬ 
ference  and  the  achievement  wrought  have  been  written  into  history, 
and  will  grow  immeasurably  beyond  the  almost  univei'sal  popular 
favor  already  accorded.  There  was  not  alone  the  triumph  in 
reducing  naval  armaments  and  ending  competition  which  was  lead¬ 
ing  to  oppressive  naval  strength  and  adding  staggering  burdens  to 
the  treasuries  of  competing  powers;  not  alone  the  removal  of  every 
war  cloud  and  every  reason  for  conflict  in  the  Pacific,  so  that  now 
accord  and  concord  abide,  where  suspicion  and  fear  had  previously 
dwelt;  but  we  gave  an  example  to  the  world  of  the  conference  way 
to  peace,  which  time  will  appraise  as  the  supreme  accomplishment. 

Hardly  had  this  gratifying  work  been  accomplished  before  the 
administration  began  its  endeavors  for  further  fulfillment.  Mean¬ 
while  an  international  court  of  justice  had  been  established.  It  was 
an  agency  of  peaceful  settlement  which  had  long  been  sought.  Its 
establishment  previously  had  failed  because  no  agreement  had  been 
possible  over  the  method  of  electing  judges.  The  existence  of  the 
League  of  Nations  offered  a  solution.  Almost  all  the  member  nations 
had  signed  a  protocol  establishing  the  court.  The  members  of  the 
council,  in  which  the  larger  powers  have  permanent  representation, 
afforded  one  voting  body  with  a  veto  on  the  members  of  the  assembly 
consisting  of  representatives  of  all  the  nations,  and  member  nations 
of  the  assembly  could  have  a  veto  on  the  larger  powers  represented 
in  the  council.  Here  was  a  device  for  electing  judges  which  re¬ 
moved  the  heretofore  imsolvable  problem  of  a  satisfactory  means 
of  selecting  them.  Not  the  council,  but  the  nation  members  thereof, 
must  vote  in  majority  for  the  same  candidates  for  which  members 
of  the  assembly  voted  in  a  majority,  else  the  election  is  void  until 
a  conference  points  the  way  to  agreement. 

The  court  was  established,  and  is  functioning.  An  American 
judge  sits  on  the  court,  though  we  had  no  part  in  choosing  him. 

Under  the  provisions  of  its  establishment  the  United  States  can 
apply  for  a  court  decision  on  any  justiciable  question,  even  as  any 
nation  participating  in  its  establisliment.  Perhaps  the  court  is  not 
all  that  some  advocates  of  the  court  plan  would  have  it,  but  it  is  in 
a  large  measure  the  fulfillment  of  an  aspiration  we  long  have  boasted. 
So  I  thought,  and  I  still  think,  we  ought  to  be  a  party  to  the  agree- 


5 


ment,  assume  our  part  in  its  maintenance,  and  give  to  it  the  benefit 
such  influence  as  our  size  and  wealth  and  ideals  may  prove  to  be. 

For  mere  eligibility  to  appeal  to  the  court,  nothing  was  needed. 
^  But  it  didn’t  seem  fair  to  seek  its  advantages  without  accepting  all 
becoming  responsibilities,  and  here  developed  the  stumblingblodi. 
f  Naturally  we  should  wish  to  participate- in  selecting  the  judges,  and 
the  electors  designated  were  members  of  the  league.  We  had  no 
thought  of  joining  the  league,  we  sought  none  of  its  offerings  and 
will  accept  none  of  its  obligations.  The  President  could  propose 
no  solution  to  the  signatory  powers,  because  the  world  has  witnessed 
in  disappointment  the  spectacle  of  the  Executive  proposing  and  the 
Senate  disposing.  It  was  not  desirable  to  make  some  proposal 
abroad  that  could  not  be  carried  out;  indeed  none  would  be  con¬ 
sidered,  and  it  was  not  pleasing  to  think  of  asking  the  Senate’s 
consent  to  a  program  to  which  the  nations  concerned  would  not 
agree.  So,  very  informally  and  very  discreetly,  the  situation  was 
felt  out,  over  a  considerable  period  of  time,  and  when  satisfied  that 
there  was  an  appropriate  course  of  action  without  connection  with 
the  league,  provided  the  Senate  consented,  I  proposed  adlierence  to 
the  court  protocol,  and  asked  the  Senate’s  consent. 

*  The  documents  speak  for  themselves.  It  was  pointed  out  that  no 

rights  under  the  league  and  no  obligations  of  the  league  would  be 
,  incurred,  but  to  make  certain  that  we  would  not  be  involved  the 
letter  of  the  Secretary  of  State  suggested  suitable  reservations  to 
afford  ample  guaranty. 

This  is  the  complete  recital.  It  is  in  harmony  with  platform 
pledges,  candidatorial  promises,  and,  I  believe,  with  American 
aspirations.  The  Senate’s  decision  was  hardly  to  be  expected  amid 
the  enormous  pressure  of  business  incident  to  the  closing  weeks  of 
the  short  session.  But  I  felt  that  the  Senate,  the  country,  and  the 
friendly  nations  whose  counsel  we  had  sought  were  entitled  to  know 
that  our  gestures  abroad  were  sincere,  and  our  own  people  should 
know  there  are  no  secrets  about  our  purposes  at  home,  once  they 
are  matured. 

Excessive  friends  of  the  league  have  beclouded  the  situation  by 
their  unwarranted  assumption  that  it  is  a  move  toward  league 
membership.  Let  them  disabuse  their  minds,  because  there  is  no 
;  such  thought  among  us  who  must  make  our  commitments  abroad. 


6 


And  the  situation  is  likewise  beclouded  by  those  Avho  shudder  ex¬ 
cessively  when  the  league  is  mentioned,  and  who  assume  entangle¬ 
ment  is  unavoidable.  Any  entanglement  would  first  require  assent 
of  the  Senate,  which  is  scarcely  to  be  apprehended,  and  if  by  any 
chance  the  Senate  approved  of  any  entanglement,  the  present  ad¬ 
ministration  would  not  complete  the  ratification.  If  in  spite  of 
these  statements,  uttered  with  full  deliberation,  there  are  excessive 
and  unfounded  hopes  on  the  one  hand,  or  utterly  unjustifiable  appre¬ 
hensions  on  the  other,  I  know  of  no  word  fittingly  to  apply. 

Frankly,  there  is  one  political  bugbear.  Wlien  we  discussed  the 
League  of  Nations  and  its  rule  of  force,  with  its  superpowers 
through  a  political  council  and  assembly,  I  myself  contended  as  a 
Senator  for  equal  voting  power  on  the  part  of  the  United  States 
with  any  nation  in  the  world.  With  her  dominions  members  of  the 
league  assembly  the  British  Empire  will  have  six  votes  in  that 
branch  of  the  court  electorate,  but  it  has  only  one  in  the  electorate 
of  the  council.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  no  nation  can  have  more 
than  one  judge,  it  is  a  less  formidable  objection  than  when  applied 
to  the  league  as  a  superpower,  dealing  with  problems  likely  to 
abridge  a  member's  national  rights.  I  appraise  the  objection  as 
one  who  voted  against  this  disparity  of  power  in  the  league  assembly, 
but  in  an  appraisal  now  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  other  great 
powers  can  accept  without  fear  the  voting  strength  of  the  British 
dominions,  when  they  are  without  ties  of  race  to  minimize  inter¬ 
national  rivalries  and  suspicions,  we  ought,  in  view  of  the  natural 
ties  of  English-speaking  kinship,  feel  ourselves  free  from  danger. 

The  perfected  court  must  be  a  matter  of  development.  I  earnestly 
commend  it  because  it  is  a  great  step  in  the  right  direction  toward 
the  peaceful  settlement  of  justiciable  questions,  toward  the  elimina¬ 
tion  of  frictions  which  lead  to  war,  and  a  surer  agency  of  interna¬ 
tional  justice  through  the  application  of  law  than  can  be  hoped  for 
in  arbitration  which  is  influenced  by  the  prejudices  of  men  and  the 
expediency  of  politics. 

We  can  do  vastly  more  to  perfect  it  in  the  capacity  of  an  adherent 
than  in  an  aloofness  in  which  we  arrogate  to  ourselves  the  right  to 
say  to  the  world  we  dictate  but  never  comply.  I  would  yield  none 
of  our  rights,  none  of  our  nationality,  but  would  gladly  give  of  our 
influence  and  cooperation  to  move  forward  and  upward  toward  world 


7 


peace  and  that  reign  of  justice  which  is  infinitely  more  secure  in  the 
rule  of  national  honor  than  in  national  or  international  force. 

I  have  indulged  the  dream,  nay,  a  justified  hope,  that  out  of  the 
encouraged  and  sustained  court  might  come  the  fulfillment  of  larger 
aspirations.  In  the  proof  of  its  utility  and  a  spirit  of  concord  among 
nations  might  come  that  voluntary  conference  of  nations  out  of  which 

could  be  expected  a  clarified  and  codified  international  law  to  further 
assure  peace  under  the  law,  and  bring  nations  that  understanding 
which  is  ever  the  first  and  best  guarantor  of  peace. 

I  would  not  have  it  thought  that  I  hold  this  question  paramount 
to  all  others  confronting  our  Government.  I  do  not  hold  it  a  menace 
to  the  unity  of  any  political  party.  It  is  not  to  be  classed  as  a  party 
question,  but  if  any  party,  repeatedly  advocating  a  world  court,  is 
to  be  rended  by  the  suggestion  of  an  effort  to  perform  in  accordance 
with  its  pledges,  it  needs  a  new  appraisal  of  its  assets. 

Our  problems  at  home  invariably  call  for  first  consideration.  Our 
own  house  must  be  kept  in  order,  our  own  good  fortune  must  be  as¬ 
sured  before  we  can  be  large  contributors  to  w^orld  progress  or  meas¬ 
urably  helpful  to  humanity.  I  have  little  patience  wdth  the  conten¬ 
tion  of  those  who  believe  large  commercial  advantages  will  attend  our 
larger  assumption  of  world  responsibility.  Nations  are  not  engaged 
in  bartering  their  trade  advantages  for  larger  fellowships.  We  do 
not  do  it  ourselves,  and  we  need  not  ask  what  we  do  not  give.  Com¬ 
merce  is  the  very  lifeblood  of  every  people’s  existence,  and  a  nation’s 
conmiercial  opportunities  are  valued  little  less  than  the  security  of 
its  citizenship. 

A  restored  Europe,  with  less  consumption  in  conflict  and  more  pro¬ 
duction  and  consumption  in  hopeful  peace  and  banished  hate,  would 
add  to  the  volume  of  world  commerce.  We  w^ould  gladly  acclaim 
such  a  restoration.  Our  influence  and  helpfulness  are  ready  when 
they  will  avail,  but  we  can  not  intrude  where  we  ourselves  would 
resist  intrusion. 

Our  position  commercially  is  gaining  in  strength,  because  we  are 
free  from  political  entanglements,  and  can  be  charged  with  no  selfish 
designs.  In  the  making  of  new  pacts  and  the  remaking  of  old,  we 
ask  no  more  and  accept  no  less  than  the  equal  opportunity  we  are 
ever  ready  to  grant  others,  and  the  position  is  unassailable.  The 
nation  which  grants  justice  may  confidently  ask  it,  and  the  world — 


8 


social,  political,  or  commercial — ^wliicli  would  promote  justice 
through  association  or  judgment  of  its  court,  must  practice  justice 
in  its  daily  transactions. 

I  made  allusion  in  the  beginning  to  political  charts  and  the  good 
faith  of  political  parties.  Sometimes  there  must  be  a  variation 
from  the  charted  course,  because  of  the  unexpected  development  of 
impassable  shoals.  This  administration,  pledged  by  a  sponsoring 
j^arty  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  to  the  building  up  of  a  merchant 
marine,  was  unable  to  secure  the  enactment  which  was  believed 
to  be  the  way  to  fulfillment.  But  it  would  be  a  small  administration 
which  would  surrender  the  aspiration  for  an  American  merchant 
marine  and  scrap  or  sacrifice  our  great  merchant  fleet  in  a  pique  of 
disappointment  over  the  Senate’s  failure  to  give  approval. 

For  security  of  defense,  for  the  avoidance  of  a  like  extravagant 
and  ineffectual  outlay  in  case  of  future  war,  for  the  promotion  of  our 
commerce  and  our  eminence  on  the  seas,  I  believe  a  great  merchant 
marine  to  be  an  outstanding  American  requirement.  Since  we  can 
not  hope  for  Government  aid  to  private  ownership,  we  propose  to 
do  our  best  to  organize  and  consolidate  our  lines  and  service,  apply¬ 
ing  the  lessons  of  experience  which  cost  us  hundreds  of  millions  in 
operation  alone,  then  offer  for  sale.  If  we  can  not  sell,  we  will  oper¬ 
ate,  and  operate  aggressively,  until  Congress  inhibits. 

Confessedly,  this  is  a  contradiction  of  the  proposal  to  have  less 
government  in  business  and  more  business  in  government,  but  if  we 
can  not  get  out  of  the  shipping  business  in  a  practical  way  and  be  as¬ 
sured  of  privately  owned  and  privately  operated  shipping,  it  is  the 
business  of  the  Government  to  conserve  our  shipping  assets  and 
make  for  our  self-reliance  on  the  high  seas. 

One  more  thought,  little  expected  on  this  occasion,  I  am  sure,  but 
particularly  appropriate  before  a  highly  representative  body  of  the 
American  press.  I  Imow  from  experience  how  a  newspaper  man 
confidently  prints  opinions  on  public  affairs.  He  has  a  marked 
advantage,  because  he  is  seldom  called  upon  to  make  good,  unless 
he  happens  to  be  elected  President,  and  apparently  no  newspaper 
man  was  ever  put  to  the  test  heretofore.  You  have  been  saying  a 
lot  about  the  failure  of  Congress,  and  the  lack  of  teamwork  be¬ 
tween  the  Executive  and  Congress,  and  many  of  you  have  deplored 
that  some  strong  man  is  not  in  the  White  House  to  make  Congress 
do  his  bidding. 


9 


-But  a  great  change  has  taken  place,  vitally  influencing  the  work 
of  administrative  and  legislative  fulfillment.  This  effectiveness  is  no 
,  longer  influenced  by  war  stress  or  Presidential  personality.  The 
great  change  has  come  about  unawares,  and  as  molders  of  public 
opinion  you  have  ignored  the  fundamental  reason.  It  is  the  change 
f  in  our  political  system,  the  laile  of  the  primary,  the  drift  toward 
pure  democracy,  and  the  growing  impotence  of  political  parties. 
We  have  gotten  away  from  the  representative  system ;  we  have 
reached  a  point  where  the  lack  of  party  loyalty  has  made  party  spon¬ 
sorship  in  government  less  effective  than  it  was.  We  have  come  to 
the  time  when  a  party  platform  is  regarded  by  too  many  men  in  pub¬ 
lic  life  as  even  less  important  than  a  scrap  of  paper,  and  groups  or 
,  blocs  are  turned  to  serve  group  interests,  and  many  individuals 
serve  their  own,  while  contempt  for  party  conference  or  caucus 
has  sent  party  loyalty  pretty  much  into  the  discard. 

I  believe  in  political  parties.  They  were  the  essential  agencies 
of  the  popular  government  which  made  us  what  we  are.  We  were 
never  perfect,  but  under  our  party  system  we  wrought  a  develop¬ 
ment  under  representative  democracy  unmatched  in  all  proclaimed 
I  liberty  and  attending  human  advancement.  We  achieved  under 
the  party  system,  where  parties  were  committed  to  policies,  and 
^  '  party  loyalty  was  a  mark  of  honor  and  an  inspiration  toward 
f  accomplishment.  Nowadays,  in  many  States,  party  adherence  is 
flouted,  loj^alty  is  held  to  be  contemptible,  nominations  for  office 
are  often  influenced  by  voters  enrolled  under  an  opposing  party 
banner,  and  platforms  are  the  insincere  utterances  of  expediency, 
influenced  by  nominees,  rather  than  by  advocates  of  principle. 

Let  no  one  misconstrue  me.  I  am  not  advocating  the  abandonment 
of  the  primary  which  gives  to  every  voter  a  voice  in  nominating 
men  for  office  and  determining  party  policy.  I  would  carefully 
preserve  and  safeguard  it  against  the  old-time  abuses  which  im¬ 
pelled  its  adoption,  but  I  would  make  it  an  agent  of  indisputable 
party  expression  rather  than  a  means  of  party  confusion  or  de¬ 
struction.  I  like  the  inculcation  of  loyalty,  the  pride  of  association, 
and  the  inspiration  to  accomplishment.  I  like  the  party  govern¬ 
ment  where  purposes  are  reached  in  the  reasoning  of  honest  repre¬ 
sentation,  and  I  like  a  party  which  is  commissioned  to  govern  to 
strive  in  good  conscience  and  all  loyalty  to  keep  the  pledges  which 
brought  it  popular  approval. 


Our  drift  to-day  is  toward  pure  democrac}^  and  no  pure  democ¬ 
racy  eA^er  long  surAnA^ed.  We  talk  solemnly  and  earnestly  about  pre¬ 
serving  our  Avorld  ciA’ilization.  I  haA-e  every  confidence  in  its  sur- 
AUA^al,  but  it  may  be  assured  only  by  humankind  reaching  the  proper 
appraisal  of  the  secure  aA’enues  of  tAventy  centuries  of  progress.  In 
our  America  vre  haA’e  the  freest  and  best  press  in  the  As^orld.  In 
its  poAver  of  to-day  only  the  press  can  sound  the  AN’arning  and 
reason  to  that  conAuction  Avhich  a\  ill  enable  us  to  play  our  full  part 
in  the  A^'ork  of  preseiwation. 


